Pekka Patosaari, Director, UNFF Secretariat, said the IYF will stimulate
action on forests, urged participation of all stakeholders, in
particular children and youth, and stressed education as the main
awareness-raising tool.

Ivica Grbac,
Assistant Minister, Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management, Croatia, highlighted the potential role of forests in
mitigating climate change, and proposed an annual International Day of
Forests. Emile Doumba, Minister for Forests, Fisheries and National
Parks, Gabon, said the Central African Forests Commission (COMIFAC)
demonstrates political commitment in the region, and said an NLBI must
provide for appropriate means for implementation. M.S. Kaban, Minister
of Forestry, Indonesia, highlighted national pledges in support of the
IYF, including enacting a law on combating illegal logging in 2008.

Pembe Didace
Bokiaga, Minister of Environment, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
outlined national actions undertaken to ensure sustainable forest
management (SFM), and appealed to partners to provide financing for
these activities. Jorge Rodriguez, Vice Minister of Environment, Costa
Rica, noted his country’s achievement in doubling its forest cover and
its aim to become the first developing country to reduce its carbon
emissions. Agnieszka Bolesta, Undersecretary of State, Ministry of
Environment, Poland, highlighted Poland’s active contribution to
developing regional policy on forests through the Ministerial Conference
on the Protection of Forests in Europe. José Cibrian Tovar, Director
General, National Forest Commission, Mexico, highlighted: the importance
of pursuing international cooperation and coordination; innovative
aspects of Mexico’s forestry programme; and Mexico's long-term
commitment to SFM.

Shamsul Momen
Palash, Organization of Art for Children, Bangladesh, announced the
launch of the Child Forest Campaign to plant one million trees and
develop leadership for SFM in Bangladesh, and highlighted linking
local-level sustainable activities to the global environment.

UNFF7 Chair
Hoogeven said that the IYF should raise public awareness on the links
between poverty alleviation and SFM.

GENERAL STATEMENTS:

Sudan, for the AFRICAN GROUP, called for: a concise and action-oriented
NLBI that includes a global forest fund and a mechanism for the transfer
of environmentally sound technologies (ESTs); and a MYPOW that
emphasizes regional collaboration, financial investments, ESTs and
capacity building. COSTA RICA said the NLBI must strengthen financial
resources and the MYPOW must enable regional dialogue to feed into
future UNFF sessions. NEW ZEALAND called for the MYPOW to give
prominence to regional processes. Papua New Guinea, for the SECRETARIAT
OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY, emphasized the role of regional collaboration
in SFM implementation, information exchange and coordination among
member countries.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION:

Gerhard Dieterle, World Bank Programme on Forests (PROFOR), introduced a
background paper on means of implementation, stating that it analyzes
trends in official development assistance (ODA), and identifies
potential new donors and mechanisms for financing and facilitating SFM
investments. Hosny El-Lakany, independent consultant, reported the
paper's major findings, including: the need to mainstream SFM into
national development strategies; a shift towards using ODA as seed money
for private sector engagement; and the need for a portfolio approach to
financing. Michael Jenkins, independent consultant, outlined the
suggested structure of the portfolio approach, consisting of: a
mechanism to mobilize forest investment from the private sector, ODA and
philanthropy; implementing and catalyzing functions of the NLBI; and a
portfolio of activities including donor collaboration, improved
governance, carbon markets and national forest monitoring analysis.

Chair Hoogeveen
said the Bureau, building on the PROFOR report, had prepared a paper to
help focus discussions on means of implementation, especially on
finance. The Secretariat presented the paper, which proposes the
establishment of a global forest partnership trust as the funding
mechanism to implement the Global Objectives. He outlined principles
that would govern the proposed fund, including a portfolio of multiple
funding sources, results-driven disbursement and minimization of new
structures and transaction costs. He also highlighted funding sources,
including public funding to be used as seed money, international trade
and forest-based companies. He said UNFF would act as the governing body
of the trust. The EU questioned the timing of the paper’s introduction,
and said NLBI negotiations must begin prior to discussions on financing.
The US said it was premature to begin discussing mechanisms, until a
full exchange of views is undertaken.

WORKING GROUP I

PRINCIPLES AND
USE OF TERMS:

The EU, supported by many and opposed by Nigeria for the AFRICAN GROUP,
requested deleting a section on defining use of terms. MAURITANIA
requested stating the instrument’s scope at the beginning of the
section.

MEXICO

,
supported by the US and others, noted that the instrument should be open
to States and regional economic integration organizations, but not Major
Groups.

The EU, the
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and the US proposed referring to each State’s
responsibility for ensuring good governance rather than promoting it.
VENEZUELA requested deleting reference to good governance.

BRAZIL

,
supported by PANAMA and the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and opposed by the EU,
preferred “new and additional” financial resources to “adequate”
resources, while SENEGAL suggested “predictable” resources. The AFRICAN
GROUP called for resources to meet the incremental costs of SFM.
AUSTRALIA cautioned that these general principles should be broadly
applicable to all countries.

PURPOSE:

Delegates debated whether to delete references to purposes beyond
achieving the Global Objectives. VENEZUELA, INDIA, COLOMBIA and BRAZIL
requested deleting references to the NLBI serving as a policy framework
for cooperation and implementation and providing policy guidance.
SWITZERLAND, the EU, the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and MEXICO opposed.
Delegates proposed, inter alia, specifying that the NLBI:
strengthens commitment to reinforce the role of forests in reversing
global ecosystem deterioration (CHINA); bridges key gaps in SFM
implementation (INDIA); and takes into account multisectoral approaches
to SFM (DOMINICAN REPUBLIC). Opposed by many, the US suggested referring
to the NLBI as the codex rather than international
instrument/understanding/code, with NIGERIA requesting that the NLBI be
referred to only as the instrument.

SEVEN THEMATIC
ELEMENTS:

On defining SFM, NIGERIA suggested moving the definition to the section
on use of terms; AUSTRALIA and the EU opposed separating the definition
from the elements; and the US and BRAZIL requested deleting the
definition of SFM and stating only the thematic elements. Delegates
agreed to delete a redundant paragraph on IPF/IFF Proposals for Action
and efforts to increase stakeholder understanding.

NATIONAL POLICIES
AND MEASURES:

On the sectionï¿½s chapeau, URUGUAY, opposed by SWITZERLAND, proposed
specifying that the section presents ï¿½guidelines for national policies
and measures,ï¿½ while IRAN proposed specifying that countries ï¿½will make
every effort to pursueï¿½ these measures. THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and
ARGENTINA suggested deleting the chapeau, while NEW ZEALAND and BRAZIL
suggested streamlining and refining the whole section instead.

VENEZUELA
questioned inclusion of the subsection on national policies and
instruments, noting redundancy with the Global Objectives. AUSTRALIA,
supported by SWITZERLAND, suggested streamlining text on taking action
at the national and subnational levels to implement SFM and contributing
to the achievement of the Global Objectives. The EU noted that text on
formulating, implementing and publishing national forest programmes or
equivalents is central to the instrument. MEXICO, supported by the EU
and SWITZERLAND, requested reference to quantifiable and timebound
targets. SWITZERLAND requested retaining text on commercializing wood
and non-wood forest goods and services.

WORKING GROUP II

COSTA RICA

,
supported by the EU, BRAZIL, PAKISTAN and ARGENTINA, stressed
implementation and attainment of SFM and the four Global Objectives.
PAKISTAN stated that developing countriesï¿½ realization of the Global
Objectives depends on additional financial resources. The US highlighted
opportunities presented by the MYPOW to transform the nature of future
meetings, such as minimizing the time spent on negotiations. The EU,
with ARGENTINA, questioned the benefit of intergovernmental preparatory
meetings (IPMs).

FORUM SESSIONS:

COSTA RICA said sessions should focus on implementation of the Global
Objectives, IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, and country action plans, and,
with ARGENTINA, opposed specifying central themes for sessions. CUBA
said UNFF8ï¿½s main theme should be means of implementation for SFM.

MEXICO

supported discussing the NLBI during each session, while the US said
sessions should only discuss NLBI commitments relevant to the MYPOW. The
EU suggested a separate NLBI agenda item, and proposed an additional
paragraph on dialogue with Major Groups.

Regarding
ministerial segments, NORWAY stressed clarifying their purpose in
advance. The EU called for clarity on inputs to the ECOSOC Annual
Ministerial Review and Development Cooperation Forums. The US suggested
that other bodies report to UNFF on relevant matters. On timing and
venues of future sessions, the EU and SWITZERLAND proposed locations
other than UN Headquarters, but ARGENTINA, CUBA and PERU opposed. The EU
proposed including text encouraging contributions from relevant
processes, organizations and stakeholders to session debates.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PREPARATORY MEETINGS:

COSTA RICA, supported by SWITZERLAND, NORWAY, JAPAN, INDONESIA and
CHINA, questioned the need for IPMs and proposed deleting this section.
The US, supported by BRAZIL, the EU and AUSTRALIA, agreed, but suggested
discussing relevant preparatory processes after clarifying the work
programme and content of sessions.

REGIONAL INPUTS:

The US proposed establishing regional points of contact to facilitate
communication between regional and subregional bodies and UNFF, and
suggested they submit a summary report of activities to UNFF, to reduce
reporting burdens. The US and ARGENTINA proposed deleting text
referencing IPMs. URUGUAY said regional and subregional meetings must
consider ways of implementing Forum decisions.

EMERGING ISSUES:

The US, AUSTRALIA and the EU expressed concern with identifying emerging
issues two years prior to each session, and proposed deleting or
reformulating the existing section.

IN THE CORRIDORS

The morning
session began harmoniously with a childrenï¿½s choir singing ï¿½give us hope
and weï¿½ll show you the way,ï¿½ but by lunchtime many voices were in
discord after sudden new developments in the debate on means of
implementation. Several developed countries expressed appreciation for
the World Bankï¿½s paper on means of implementation, but felt that the
Bureauï¿½s accompanying proposal was unexpected and, at this stage, was
ï¿½jumping the gunï¿½ on several ideas that are still up for discussion.
Many developing country delegates openly welcomed the Bureauï¿½s proposed
global trust for forests; however, pointing towards the paperï¿½s
specifics on results-based funding disbursements, one delegate noted
that the proposal may be unacceptable for some developing country
regional groups. With potential opposition from both sides, it remains
to be seen whether the proposal will give hope and show delegates their
way out of dissonance on a financial mechanism for the NLBI.

This issue of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin ï¿½
<enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Deborah Davenport, Ph.D.,
Reem Hajjar, Stefan Jungcurt,
Leila Mead and Julie Taylor.
The Digital Editor is Dan
Birchall. The Editor is
Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James ï¿½Kimoï¿½ Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
United Kingdom (through the
Department for International
Development ï¿½ DFID), the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Danish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the
European Commission (DG-ENV)
and the Italian Ministry for
the Environment and
Territory General
Directorate for Nature
Protection. General Support
for the Bulletin
during 2007 is provided by
the Swiss Federal Office for
the Environment (FOEN), the
Norwegian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the
Ministry of Environment, the
Government of Australia, the
Austrian Federal Ministry
for the Environment, the
Ministry of Environment of
Sweden, the New Zealand
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Trade, SWAN
International, the Japanese
Ministry of Environment
(through the Institute for
Global Environmental
Strategies - IGES) and the
Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry
(through the Global
Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
into French has been
provided by the
International Organization
of the Francophonie (IOF)
and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for
the translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
into Spanish has been
provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The
opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors
and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD or
other donors. Excerpts from
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA. The ENB Team at
the UNFF7 can be contacted
by e-mail at <reem@iisd.org>.